MOTUEKA WHARF

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 6 April 1922, Page 5

MOTUEKA WHARF

THE £6,000 LOAN an important poll (From Our Own, Correspondent.) Considerable interest is manifest .in the Mohieka Harbour Board’s proposal to raise a loan of I'OOOO towards Dio cost of reconstructing the present wharf and adding an'entirely new portion, of about HtO feet thereto, to provide further berthage accommodation for shipping. A poll of ratepayers ot the harbour district will be taken on the proposal next Saturday, Bth Inst. During the past week or two the chairman and members of the Hoard have addressed public meetings at several centres of the population of Die district, when resolutions passed by ratepayers strongly approved of the proposals and in several rases pledged themselves to vote for the loan. At these meetings the facts which have created the unfortunate necessity of rebuilding the wharf, built only six years ago, were fully and fairly explained by the speakers. The function when the new harboin and wharf at Port Motueka were officially opened is a memory still fresh in the minds of our people. At that, time it was fully anticipated that no further expenditure, over and above the then cost of the works, some £27 ,- 000, would be required for many years to come. This original cost was made up hv h loan from the Government of £22,000 and £5900 contributed from the Harbour Board’s financial savings from ordinary revenue. At that time it was contended that the ujorks Had been carried out by I lie Hoard under the advice of the lies! engineers, including the Government Engineer-in-Cliief, obtainable, and that Contention lias not since been refuted. Ou the other baud the Hatx hour Board has been commended for having Liken every precaution To ensure the safety of the steps taken, and that material of the best and most durable kinds should be used in making the wharf. The Board was advised to use totara timber for piles, as it was held that this variety of timber was immune from the ravages of the teredo, commonly known as the marine worm, an insect known to destroy most varieties of timber when placed in the sea for a length of time. RAVAGES OF 'THE TEREDO About two years ago the harbourmaster reported to the Hoard that there were conclusive signs of the worm in the wharf piles. As time went on it was found that the insect was increasingly destroying the timber. Reports by engineers wore then obtained and a "Government engineer reported that the wharf was in danger of collapse, a large portion of it having already given away, and that the structure would require to be dismantled and rebuilt. Further information from engineers was obtained, when it was learned that the teredo had not been known to destroy totara timber used in wharves in other places, while in his report the Government Engineer stated “a good class of local totara was used and that it was nearly all heart wood." ESTIMATED COST OF NEW WHARF. £BO6O Plans and estimates of cost for rebuilding and extensions were prepared. The estimates show a total of £BO6O, including the cost of extensions at £465, for a wharf built of reinforced concrete understructuro with wooden decking. The estimates do not include the value of the piles which have been given to tbo Board, free of cost, by the Government. The Government has also allocated.a cash subsidy of £SOO towards the cost of reconstruction. The lowest possible computed value of the concrete piles is about £IBOO. The piles were made at Westport eight years ago. 'rims the value of the reconstruction works to the ratepayers might be assessed at nearly £IO,OOO, toward which amount they are being ashed to sanction the. raising of a loan of £6OOO, which together with Die Government subsidy and £2OOO saved from the Board’s revenue will be sufficient to meet the necessary expenditure. It is possible that a smalt rate, the oneeigntli of a penny in. the £ on the capital rateable value M the district, with bo required to pay the annual amount of interest and sinking fund payments, but it is anticipated the. Hoard’s surplus revenue will be sufficient for the latter purpose. Whether this will bo so or whether such is, not j the. case, any argument about a Tate being collected being put up as a reason for voting against the loan proposal is-absolutely no reason at all, when one stops to Think of the fatal boomerang blow which would result to the property owners and others in the harbour district if the proposal is turned down. Without being provided with the £6OOO the wharf cannot be rebuilt. A commencement jvith preparing material, plant, and freight on piles from Westport Jins already incurred The expenditure of £1536 6s 6d of the Board’s £2OOO and the balance of that amount will be spent before the first pile can be driven. Certainly, there is a possibility of the Board continuing the work to the extent of another £2OOO, which might be obtained by way of bank overdraft, but such a. policy is financially unsound, while the carrying of the loan proposal is the alternative, ami. the latter would complete the works, while the other idea, would! fall very far short of that certainty. In their own interests, therefore, it is anticipated that the ratepayers will carry the loan, for, to allow the wharf to collapse wmftd mean, in another sense, the closing of the harbour for shipping ,practically placing Die district some 30 to 40 miles away from the next nearest, port—Nelson, and to pay the overland charges on all goods deceived from, ’and all produce forwkwied! to places be vend Nelson would spell ruin to manq and depreciation on property 'values to all,leaving the lew —-most probably those who may vote against the loan—to make up the payments of the district’,s existing annual commitments.